About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 5
MSNBC 5
MSNBCW 5
KNTV (NBC) 2
WBAL (NBC) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 38
Search Results 0 to 37 of about 38 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> there are restraints. >> we're going to be debating -- >> in the pentagon and the cia. >> i mean, his little deputies are over there telling him what he can and can't do? >> this is going to be an ongoing debate in this program, there's no question about it. this is a whole new world. exit question. the united nations human rights council is now examining drone strikes. if some or all of anti- terrorist drone use is found to constitute war crimes, and the u.n. rules the matter to the icc, which is the u.n.'s international criminal court, will president obama be able to travel overseas for the rest of his life without fearing ending up in the icc docket? >> you shoe tell the icc to mind its own business but we should have the congress of the united states and the leaders of the united states debate this issue and set rules of engagement we can all agree upon and follow. >> point is well taken. stop trying to sweep this under the rug. >> let's put it up-front. >> eleanor. >> these are valid questions, and they were debated in the hearing for the confirmation of john brennan this week. it is how a democ
. the confirmation vote fort next defense secretary was held up until the current pentagon chief agreed to answer questions about last september's terrorist attack in libya. today a senate panel got to question leon panetta, national security correspondent jennifer griffin tells us not everyone was satisfied with what they heard. >> based on time, distance and alertouldn't have gotten there on time. >> time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, it takes hours to be able to respond. >> defense secretary leon panetta and joint chiefs chairman general martin dempsey explained why the military couldn't do more to save the lives of ambassador chris stevens, sean smith, tyrone woods and glenn dougherty in benghazi on september 11. >> united states military, as i've said, is not and frankly should not be a 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world. >> republican senators weren't satisfied. >> did you know how long the attack was going to last, secretary panetta? >> no idea. >> well, it could have lasted for two days. any airplane lau
the obama administration, i'm quoting him now, of a, quote, massive cover-up. let's bring in our pentagon correspondent barbara starr. she's working this story for us. how those are pretty stinging and strong words, barbara. >> reporter: absolutely, wolf. you know, the whole benghazi situation has already led to delays in confirming some of president obama's key appointees. chuck hagel at defense, john brennan at the cia, and now senator mccain saying he is not ready to call it a day on all of this. a congress hearing -- >> then you ought to have your facts straight. >> reporter: after congressional hearing. >> who responsible then? >> reporter: republican senator john mccain challenge, the white house on its response to benghazi. now he is going further on nbc's "meet the press." >> so there are many, many questions and we have had a massive cover-up. >> a cover-up of what? i'm just saying you, a cover-up of what? >> i'll be glad to send you a list of questions that have not been answered. >> reporter: the white house says it's given answers. conducted 20 briefings for congress. official
is virginia home to the pentagon, the world's largest u.s. navy base, but a hub for major defense contractors such as aircraft builders. so the impact over 200,000 jobs, second only to california. you can't want this automatic spending cut to go forward. >> you know, clearly this is not, david, the best way to go about trying to chroontrol spending. and we have demonstrated in the house two separate occasions -- one of the bills we put across the floor and passed i was the sponsor of for that reason. these are indiscriminate cuts. we can do a lot better. what i hope to be able to hear from the president in the state of the union is he wants to join us in trying to effect much smarter cuts in spending. >> but that's what he's saying. >> we don't have to have the impact that you just described. >> why not work with him on short-term measure which he is talking about to delay this, find a different way to go about some of the cuts? >> the problem is, david, every time you turn around the answer is to raise taxes. and, you know, he just got his tax hike on the wealthy. and you can't in this town
home to the pentagon, the largest navy base in norfolk, it's a hub for defense contractors, such as aircraft carrier builders, nondefense budget cuts would eliminate another 71,000-plus jobs in virginia. so, the impact over 200,000 jobs, second only to california. you can't want this automatic spending cut to go forward. >> you know, clearly, this is not, david, the best way to go about trying to control spending, and we have demonstrated in the house for two separate occasions. one of the bills that we put across the floor that passed i was a sponsor of for exactly that reason. these are indiscriminate cuts. we can do a lot better. and what i hope to be able to hear from the president in the state of the union is he wants to join us in trying to effect much smarter cuts in spending so we don't have to have -- >> but that's what he's saying. >> so we don't have to have the impact that you discussed. >> why not work with him on some short-term measure that he's talking about to delay this, try to find a different way to go about these cuts? >> the problem is, david, every ti
anything at all from any of our troops on the front lines but to say that in the entire pentagon budget there isn't an iota of room for cuts like this for meaningful cuts would be lying. >> this is significant. you have republicans saying the pentagon budget can be cut without jeopardizing national security. not all of them. you have people like john mccain -- describe the fall but a lot of republicans, privately and publicly, saying that there is room to cut the -- >> as long as you don't -- as long as you hold harmless with everything that deals with troop readiness, that deals with troops on the front lines and military families but there's plenty of room in the procurement budgets, there's plenty of room for reforms and for -- >> i want to come to that in a second, but the problem will be, i think for the white house, broadly and for the country is the point that congressman ellison makes, you hit the sequester right now, that is goign to have a real economic impact right away. >> absolutely, absolutely, and i think you'll hear the president most likely talk about that on tuesday ni
live with those cutbacks to the pentagon. so isn't there a spending problem here that must be addressed? >> absolutely. and i believe as chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee and in the senate that we can save money, cut waste in the pentagon, and not compromise our national security. but to do this in such a haphazard way over the remaining six or seven months is going to be unfair to the military and our families. think about this for a second. cutting back on psychological counseling for the members of the military and their family during the remainder of this year when we have this grievous problem of suicides in the military and readjustment when they come home from battle. we can't do that. >> but isn't there always a reason to spend the money in washington? >> no. >> can't you always find a reason not to cut? isn't this the republican argument that at least here, if worse comes to worse and the sequester happens, we'll at least get spending cuts. how else to force the president's hand? >> do we really want to base our spending cuts reducing medical research in ameri
on capitol hill right now on the a hearing for the benghazi terror attack where he addressed the pentagon's response to the assault on our consulate on september 11th. four americans, including our ambassador to libya, died in that attack. this comes just a day after mr. panetta emotionally charged parting speech to students at georgetown university where he blasted the massive defense cuts known as the sequester, set to go into effect just weeks from now. >> if sequester happens, let me tell you some of the results. we will furlough as many as 800,000 dod civilians around the country for up to 22 days. they could face a 20% cut in their salary. you don't think that will impact on our economy? you don't think that's going to impact on jobs? you don't think that's going to impact on our ability to recover from the recession? jon: mr. panetta also deliver ad stark warning about the scale and scope of cyber attacks on this country saying they could cripple the united states. >> we are literally the target of thousands of cyber attacks every day. every day. thousands of sigher about attacks t
of the events of the events in benghazi. there were a series of meetings in the pentagon for expanding the department of defense's response as well as to prepare for the potential outbreak of further violence throughout the region. during these meetings, secretary panetta authorized a number of deployments. i hope that secretary panetta and the chairman will provide the committee with detail on the circumstances that led them to these decisions. since september, there's been a great deal of focus on the supporting role that the marine corps guards played -- play in many u.s. diplomatic missions abroad. the marine corps did not have an lament in again-- in benghazi. the committee will be closely monitoring the use of these marines. our fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act that requires the secretary of defense to conduct an assessment of the mission of the marine security guard program, whether it should be expanded and to report to congress on the results of this review. more immediately, the provision requires the secretary to develop a plan to increase the number of ma
structures inside the pentagon? >> well, the first impression was not positive, because of the -- as a result of the hearings, chris, no doubt about that and it is imperative for the new defense secretary. he will be confirmed. his first public outing or two it will be important to project the command, gravitas, thoroughly briefed, in charge of the facts, to dispel the original im protection creapres after that, it will be to surround himself with a strong management team. it is a big management responsibility, at the pentagon and they'll go through changes and fiscal challenges, without the sequester, and, so ultimately the proof in the pudding will be in how he performs as defense secretary and if he comes out of the blocks as a veteran professional, it is not a big deal and he can put it behind him. >> chris: bill one way the white house is trying to clear the path for two nominees, hagel at defense and brennan at cia, is that they have kind of grudgingly been dragged out, have agreed to release some of the e-mails that chart how the talking points were developed after the benghazi terror
from georgetown, serve as my chief of staff at the c.i.a. and then followed me to the pentagon as my chief of staff. and also someone who's had a public affairs at the pentagon, george little, who is also someone who both graduated and later taught here at georgetown. talented young individuals who have been at my side every day for the last four years at both the c.i.a. and the pentagon, and i am deeply grateful for their work for me and on behalf of the nation and i am deeply grateful for georgetown for training such extraordinary public servants. and speaking of extraordinary public servants, i think many in this audience know that there's a georgetown professor that the president has nominated to serve as the next secretary of defense, chuck hagel, and i am confident and i've expressed that confidence publicly that the men and women of the department of defense will have the kind of advocate they need as the nation emerges from more than a decade of war. lastly, i'm honored to be here, as i said, as a catholic and as a proud graduate of another jesuit institution, santa clara uni
return home, and i admit that when we first asked him to lead the pentagon, his answer was simple -- no. but i kept asking him. i am persistent. that is how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to his patriotism, to his sense of duty, that leon agreed to serve on this one last tour. perhaps it was the memory of his parents and opening their homes up to gi's added to the pacific, perhaps leon served himself, a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deployed to afghanistan. what we do know is this -- as our nation's's 23rd secretary of defense and every action beyond panetta has taken, every decision he has made has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq, winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we have put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat. we have been relentless against its affi
when he talks. apparently brennan wants to put them under pentagon control. who knows if that is true but there are three things i was shocked the democrats didn't bring up. and it's three questions that every president obama ditto head has to respond to. i don't like criticizing this but let's be honestly about a couple of things. number 1, the word imminent how that no longer means imminent and it means we think you might do something 20s years from now and that makes you an imminent threat and we have to kill you with with no trial. no. 2 is militant. any male over the age of 16 whose near where one of these bombs goes off is counted as a militant whether they were or not. toe try to talk al-qaeda guys. >> that's how they keep the civilian death tolls low. it's a dirt dirty business. number 3, blowback, what no democrat asked about is every time we kill an america hater with one of these things we are creating untold numbers of new. so it's person pet y'all war. >> i would add a high informed -- highly placed. we don't know who that i
kill tv, jay johnson, a pentagon stop lawyer admitted, quote, if i were catholic i'd have to go to confession, unquote. mr. petraeus' departure presents mr. obama with an opportunity to halt the c.i.a.'s drift toward becoming a paramilitary organization and put it back on course. for all the technological advances america's made in the decade of fighting al qaeda, it still needs all the old tricks it learned in the day before spy satellites and droughns drones. more and better human intelligence in sources on the ground will result in more accurate targeting. that would be a yemen model that actually worked and a lasting and more effective counterterrorism legacy for mr. obama's second term. gregory johnson from "the new york times." another good article by patrick pool on june 6 of 2012. obama's assassination czar, a relatively unnoticed article, this is from the article, quoting, by associated press reporter kimberly dozer two weeks ago outlining new obama administration policy changes which consolidated power for authorizing drone attacks and assassinations under political ap
clinton was awarded the pentagon's highest recognition for a civilian employee. clinton thanked the group for her valentine's day gift. we should note also for the first time since her accident in december, clinton did not have to wear those corrective lenses she's been using for impaired vision from her fall. >> in the future we will be looking to your suck -- to keep our nation strong, free and exceptional. >> and pope benedict xvi has given his final mass in a rare ovation from the people assembled at st. peter's kba silica. nbc's anne thompson is live with us in rome and i don't think we knew the full extent of the troubles he was experiencing in mexico, that final trip where he was in mexico and in cuba, we knew there were scandals in the church there, protests for lack of an apology. but now it turns out he took a fall in the middle of the night and hit his head? >> reporter: he did and it was after that trip when he wind chill factor to cuba that the pope made the decision he was going to retire and started setting the wheels in motion here for the announcement that came earlier th
to most americans has really grown exponentially. ten years ago the pentagon had 50 drones. today it's 7,500. a third of the air force's fleet unmanned. u.s. military carried out 447 drone attacks in afghanistan in the first 11 months in 2012. 294 total in all of 2011. what's behind this drone explosion, if you will? >> well, i think that drones are sort of irresistible for a policymaker, for a president who is worried about protecting the country but also, you know, a president who in many ways was formed politically by the experiences in iraq and afghanistan, at least as far as his foreign policy views, who doesn't want to see dangerous, costly, bloody military entanglements in far away nations. drones are surgical. they're cheap. you can have a pretty high degree of accuracy. it is true that there have been numerous civilian casualties, but relative to any other technology we have short of sending in, you know, an assassin with a sniper rifle which in many cases just isn't practical, drones are the best way to sort of take the enemy off the battlefield. they don't cost a lot of money.
no auditable books in the pentagon. panetta, that's the one agency of government that has never submitted an audited set of books in history. >> bill: wow. >> not one -- and frankly by itself, that would i think provide an ability to really see where we're throwing money away. and again, secretary panetta, to his credit, has got a mandate within the four branches to basically say 2014, we've got to do this. frankly, it is going to be interesting to see if they can hit this goal. the size of the pentagon is bigger than 90 countries gdp. so but again so yes there's definitely smart savings that you can do there. again, i would go back to the afghanistan expenditure $2 billion a week we're spending over there. no one thinks we're going to have a combat mission after 2014. so you know, that's money that we're not going to be spending. and so really, the opportunities are there to avoid again by the way, the bipartisan policy center, "new york times" yesterday, said a million jobs will be lost if sequestration goes through. cbo says 1.4. >> bill: congressman, a lot of battles to fight. we're g
of improving efficiency within the pentagon. i would say that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is focused on readiness and training, which is absolutely true. if you talk to the lawyers that work with the defense contractors, they think they will have a field day care and some had testimony last year that the legal hassles emanating from sequestration may eat up a lot of their savings. but beyond that, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. and what we do is try to develop capability to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can prepare for future contingencies. the point is that it does not just readiness. it hurts us in the real world today. there are lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration's savings for other more targeted savings so that you save this amount of money, you're still fiscally responsible, but you don't get defense and these domestic p
on that "washington post" article that came out recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that we keep on about 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the planning process thus far, but can you supported plan that would scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? you know, we are looking at withdrawal of troops in afghanistan, and according to this article from about 8000 down to 1000 within a very short period of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends upon conditions on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood what the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. and i certainly, my advice as a commander on the ground or commander of central command, i would provide my advice based upon where i think the security forces are, a
Search Results 0 to 37 of about 38 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)